The Activ8 Activity Monitor: Validation of Posture and Movement Classification

Overview

Journal J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2020 Mar 25

PMID 32206335

Citations 12

Authors

Herwin Horemans

Hedwig Kooijmans

Rita van den Berg-Emons

Hans Bussmann

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: To set up and guide interventions with the aim to increase physical activity and lower sedentary behavior valid monitoring of physical behavior is essential. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the single-unit Activ8 activity monitor to classify several body postures and movements.

Methods: Twelve healthy adults performed a series of activities, representative for everyday life, according to a standard protocol. Activ8 was both worn in the trouser pocket (prescribed location) and fixated to the front of the thigh. Activities were video recorded and analyzed thereafter. Postures and movements that were analyzed were lying/sitting, standing, walking, cycling, and running.

Results: The agreement between Activ8 output and video analysis was 89.7% (inter-subject range: 66.0 to 96.6%) for the pocket location and 91.9% (range 85.5 to 95.1%) for the thigh location. Sensitivity and positive predictive value scores for both locations were all above 80%, except for standing (69% or higher). Differences in classified duration of separate postures and movements were within 20% for walking, sitting and running.

Conclusion: The Activ8 is a valid instrument to quantify a defined set of body postures and movements. Because of the smaller time difference, the thigh location is preferred for research purposes.

Citing Articles

Effect of a soft exosuit on daily life gait performance in people with incomplete spinal cord injury: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Visch L, Groen B, Geurts A, van Nes I, Keijsers N Trials. 2024; 25(1):592.

PMID: 39242508 PMC: 11378477. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08412-2.

Correlates of physical activity in ambulatory people with spinal cord injury during the first year after inpatient rehabilitation.

Postma K, van Diemen T, Post M, Stolwijk-Swuste J, van den Berg-Emons R, Osterthun R Spinal Cord. 2024; 62(5):249-254.

PMID: 38509176 DOI: 10.1038/s41393-024-00982-x.

Validation of the Activ8 Activity Monitor for Monitoring Postures, Motions, Transfers, and Steps of Hospitalized Patients.

Becker M, Hurkmans H, Verhaar J, Bussmann J Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(1).

PMID: 38203041 PMC: 10781347. DOI: 10.3390/s24010180.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Intervention Compared With Face-to-Face Physiotherapy in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Koppenaal T, Van Dongen J, Kloek C, Arensman R, Veenhof C, Pisters M J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e43034.

PMID: 37999947 PMC: 10709796. DOI: 10.2196/43034.

A DEDICATED AMPUTEE SPORTS PROGRAMME IMPROVES PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING AND SPORTS PARTICIPATION.

VAN Oorschot W, VAN Ee I, Keijsers N J Rehabil Med Clin Commun. 2023; 6:12392.

PMID: 37964806 PMC: 10642343. DOI: 10.2340/jrmcc.v6.12392.

References

Reilly J, Penpraze V, Hislop J, Davies G, Grant S, Paton J . Objective measurement of physical activity and sedentary behaviour: review with new data. Arch Dis Child. 2008; 93(7):614-9. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2007.133272. View

Bassett Jr D, Rowlands A, Trost S . Calibration and validation of wearable monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 44(1 Suppl 1):S32-8. PMC: 3273335. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399cf7. View

Russchen H, Slaman J, Stam H, Markus-Doornbosch F, van den Berg-Emons R, Roebroeck M . Focus on fatigue amongst young adults with spastic cerebral palsy. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014; 11:161. PMC: 4274699. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-161. View

Pavey T, Gomersall S, Clark B, Brown W . The validity of the GENEActiv wrist-worn accelerometer for measuring adult sedentary time in free living. J Sci Med Sport. 2015; 19(5):395-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2015.04.007. View

Schutz Y, Weinsier R, Hunter G . Assessment of free-living physical activity in humans: an overview of currently available and proposed new measures. Obes Res. 2001; 9(6):368-79. DOI: 10.1038/oby.2001.48. View

Wright S, Hall Brown T, Collier S, Sandberg K . How consumer physical activity monitors could transform human physiology research. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2017; 312(3):R358-R367. PMC: 5401997. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00349.2016. View

Biswas A, Oh P, Faulkner G, Bajaj R, Silver M, Mitchell M . Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162(2):123-32. DOI: 10.7326/M14-1651. View

Dasenbrock L, Heinks A, Schwenk M, Bauer J . Technology-based measurements for screening, monitoring and preventing frailty. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2016; 49(7):581-595. DOI: 10.1007/s00391-016-1129-7. View

Fanchamps M, Horemans H, Ribbers G, Stam H, Bussmann J . The Accuracy of the Detection of Body Postures and Movements Using a Physical Activity Monitor in People after a Stroke. Sensors (Basel). 2018; 18(7). PMC: 6069255. DOI: 10.3390/s18072167. View

10.

Ferguson T, Rowlands A, Olds T, Maher C . The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015; 12:42. PMC: 4416251. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-015-0201-9. View

11.

van den Berg-Emons R, LOrtye A, Buffart L, Nieuwenhuijsen C, Nooijen C, Bergen M . Validation of the Physical Activity Scale for individuals with physical disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92(6):923-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.12.006. View

12.

Warburton D, Nicol C, Bredin S . Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. CMAJ. 2006; 174(6):801-9. PMC: 1402378. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.051351. View

13.

Zhang K, Werner P, Sun M, Pi-Sunyer F, Boozer C . Measurement of human daily physical activity. Obes Res. 2003; 11(1):33-40. DOI: 10.1038/oby.2003.7. View

14.

Bussmann J, Martens W, Tulen J, Schasfoort F, Stam H . Measuring daily behavior using ambulatory accelerometry: the Activity Monitor. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2001; 33(3):349-56. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195388. View

15.

Groot S, Nieuwenhuizen M . Validity and reliability of measuring activities, movement intensity and energy expenditure with the DynaPort MoveMonitor. Med Eng Phys. 2013; 35(10):1499-505. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.04.004. View

16.

Pavey T, Gilson N, Gomersall S, Clark B, Trost S . Field evaluation of a random forest activity classifier for wrist-worn accelerometer data. J Sci Med Sport. 2016; 20(1):75-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.06.003. View

17.

Ainsworth B, Cahalin L, Buman M, Ross R . The current state of physical activity assessment tools. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2014; 57(4):387-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.pcad.2014.10.005. View

18.

Jiang Y, Larson J . IDEEA activity monitor: validity of activity recognition for lying, reclining, sitting and standing. Front Med. 2013; 7(1):126-31. DOI: 10.1007/s11684-012-0236-0. View

19.

Dannecker K, Sazonova N, Melanson E, Sazonov E, Browning R . A comparison of energy expenditure estimation of several physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013; 45(11):2105-12. PMC: 3800491. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318299d2eb. View

20.

Taraldsen K, Askim T, Sletvold O, Einarsen E, Bjastad K, Indredavik B . Evaluation of a body-worn sensor system to measure physical activity in older people with impaired function. Phys Ther. 2011; 91(2):277-85. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20100159. View